Okay, so let's say your experiment 1 proves that oil is lighter than water and will rise when the two are mixed ... I'm not sure that really needed proving ... but okay ...

Your experiment 2 doesn't really prove anything in regards oil being lighter than water since the use of a balloon introduces the influence of water pressure on the balloon as the more probable cause of the oil rising in the tube ...

Your experiment 3 seems nonsensical to me in that I really have a hard time believing the results you report are due to the oil being lighter than the water -- since there isn't any water in the tube for the oil to rise in -- and not some other factor. I'm still looking around the house for something a little more secure than celophane rubber-banded to the wine glass -- that seems to me to be a point of weakness in the experiment.

Ideally, you'd want to use a vessel that can be stoppered with one of those rubber lab plugs with a hole in it that will allow a tube to be inserted while maintaining an airtight seal ... I may actually go out and find such equipment, since although it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I really do want to see if under more controlled conditions for some bizarre reason that experiment will actually produce the results you describe ;-)

I really do want to see if under more controlled conditions for some bizarre reason that experiment will actually produce the results you describe ;-)

Controlled conditions would mean you have to place your equipment in a partial vacuum to scale back hydrostatic pressure, and also have the equipment dropping to scale back gravity to account for the reduced weight of the fluid column you're using.

I see a big difference between one and the other and can't understand your equating in your experiment a ruptured well and an intact one. Isn't this all about the oil spill? Yet, you choose to ignore it in your model?

BP aimed for a complete sealing of the ruptured pipe using a series of rubber baffles around the RITT pipe so there'd be no loss of oil into the ocean. The design of their siphoning procedure which aimed for a watertight seal is therefore the same as mine except I achieved it and they didn't. Their problem wasn't that water got into the riser but that oil escaped into the sea therefore letting water into wine glass would not have simulated their conditions. Although piercing the cellophane with a tube may have produced a breach to let water in that didn't in fact happen but even if it had the oil would still have risen to the surface as Bozo has pointed out. Experiment 3 is a fair simulation in that BP's procedure kept water out of the RITT and riser and I kept it out if my plastic tube.

Well, I made that point in relation to experiment 1 when I poured oil into water in a wine glass and it rose to the surface, which simulates the spill, of course. Since there's more pressure on water than on anything lighter than water such as oil it comes to the surface from a subaquatic source even through a pipe - that's what my experiments 2 and 3 prove. km

What you proved is a balloon can squeeze oil up a short straw, which does not in any way translate into pressure required for lifting oil up a designated length of pipeline and dealing with head loss.

You've confused head, buoyancy and pressure. You've made completely false statements such as

Originally Posted By: keymaker

Since oil is lighter than water its always coming to surface and will come out of the pipe at the same pressure it goes in.

which is mathematically impossible. It is a complete violation of the laws of physics for a fluid column to have the same pressure at higher altitude than it does at lower altitude.

Oil is also not lighter than water. One pound of oil weighs the same as one pound of water, which weighs the same as one pound of feathers. Oil has less density than water. As I explained already, the oil does not give two craps if water is around the pipe, if bricks are sitting on it, or Hugo from Lost is sitting on it. The working force is pressure, not buoyancy.

This entire discussion was raised because you pulled a number from your butt:

Quote:

about 2,000 lbs psi at that depth.

I simply replied that 2000psi is not enough pressure to raise oil one mile.

The math is easy.

One issue we have however is the density of the crude oil. It can vary anywhere from .87 (Texas) to .97(Mexico). Even though it's probably heavier, I'll be generous and use .9, which gives us pressure loss of .3906psi/ft

Multiply .3906 * 5280 and you get 2062.368 psi is required to lift oil exactly one mile -> however that is without factoring in major loss due to friction and turbulence of the fluid. Add several hundred more psi because I really don't feel like explaining it to you.

2062.368 psi is greater than 2000 psi.

Math doesn't lie, 2000 psi is not enough pressure to raise oil one mile, at best with no loss it would raise it 5120 feet, and at the top of the column of oil, the pressure will always be zero psi.

I can see you thinking of ways to twist this around now. However my statement of "like it or not, a pump is going to be involved" is unchanged and still true. Oil platforms have pumps for a reason.

Your experiment 2 doesn't really prove anything in regards oil being lighter than water since the use of a balloon introduces the influence of water pressure on the balloon as the more probable cause of the oil rising in the tube

There wasn't enough oil in the balloon for the squeezing effect you're thinking of. The fact that I got the same result using a solid container makes your squeezing theory the least, not most, probable cause.

Quote:

Your experiment 3 seems nonsensical to me in that I really have a hard time believing the results you report are due to the oil being lighter than the water -- since there isn't any water in the tube for the oil to rise in -- and not some other factor.

There doesn't need to be water in the tube. The oil and gas come up to the surface because the pressure on the water outside the tube is greater than that on the oil and gas inside it.

Quote:

I'm still looking around the house for something a little more secure than celophane rubber-banded to the wine glass -- that seems to me to be a point of weakness in the experiment.

What you proved is a balloon can squeeze oil up a short straw, which does not in any way translate into pressure required for lifting oil up a designated length of pipeline and dealing with head loss.

Noope, I've already explained that squeezing has nothing to do with it - re-read my posts.

Quote:

You've confused head, buoyancy and pressure. You've made completely false statements such as ... "oil is lighter than water its always coming to surface and will come out of the pipe at the same pressure it goes in which is mathematically impossible. It is a complete violation of the laws of physics for a fluid column to have the same pressure at higher altitude than it does at lower altitude.

No that's wrong - experiment 1 proved that when oil is submerged beneath water gravity only keeps it down when it hits the surface.

Quote:

Oil is also not lighter than water.

This could be where you're going wrong, Sarge (if not where you're getting more and more desperate for a winning line ) I said oil is lighter than water because it's a scientific truth.

Quote:

One pound of oil weighs the same as one pound of water...

Doh, wrong measure - one pint of oil is lighter than one pint of water.

Quote:

The working force is pressure, not buoyancy.

I never said anything about buoyancy... but I have been quite clear about the relative effects of pressure.

Quote:

This entire discussion was raised because you pulled a number from your butt:

Not really... because BP didn't need a pump to get oil into the tanker.

Quote:

I simply replied that 2000psi is not enough pressure to raise oil one mile.

I suggest you read Bozo's 'gushing' posts and his link thereon. You keep ignoring the fact that the oil is submerged beneath water so there's upward pressure on it without a pump - that's what's happening in the gulf and that's what's proved by my experiments.

Quote:

The math is easy...

Yeah, maybe a little bit too easy, as poly has pointed out. What you need to do, with respect, is produce the math(s) that explain my experiments rather than the 'math' that attempts to deny them.

Quote:

I can see you thinking of ways to twist this around now. However my statement of "like it or not, a pump is going to be involved" is unchanged and still true. Oil platforms have pumps for a reason.

Yeah but not for that reason - my experiments prove that pumps aren't necessary to bring oil to the surface. In fact, what BP did was to connect the RITT and riser pipe to the old ruptured one and warm the oil with sea water to improve viscocity.

There doesn't need to be water in the tube. The oil and gas come up to the surface because the pressure on the water outside the tube is greater than that on the oil and gas inside it.

Well, that would be a different cause than the fact that oil is lighter* than water. I've been pointing out all this time that it was a matter of pressure.

*or less dense, as Sgt. Baxter points out, although that's what I've been interpreting "lighter" to mean in our discussions

Quote:

You could save yourself a lot of trouble by repeating my experiment which took a couple of minutes instead of trying to improve upon it.

Yeah, that's a personal decision on my part since I think the qualities of the cellophane not being rigid and as watertight as I would probably want might possibly be introducing unwanted factors into the experiment. Or perhaps I'll do it both ways =)

BP aimed for a complete sealing of the ruptured pipe using a series of rubber baffles around the RITT pipe so there'd be no loss of oil into the ocean. The design of their siphoning procedure which aimed for a watertight seal is therefore the same as mine except I achieved it and they didn't.

Their problem wasn't that water got into the riser but that oil escaped into the sea therefore letting water into wine glass would not have simulated their conditions. Although piercing the cellophane with a tube may have produced a breach to let water in that didn't in fact happen but even if it had the oil would still have risen to the surface as Bozo has pointed out. Experiment 3 is a fair simulation in that BP's procedure kept water out of the RITT and riser and I kept it out if my plastic tube.

km

I see, you have proven that if in a well the riser pipe breaks and you fix it the well will work again!

And you have better technology that BP because your rubber band succeeded where their "series of rubber baffles" have failed.

Congratulations! BP should hire you immediately. Their well is still spilling.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.